Been looking around for this one - as I understand it was released as public domain in the 4D1-3.2 days by NASA Ames and has since disappeared except for the company that wants $750 and a lot of bother to get a copy of the source code.

And, last (but not least): the original release is still in the comp.sys.sgi archives, as a set of 6 SHAR files.Seach for author: "David A. Tristram" in comp.sys.sgi, around Aug. 18th 1988. There's an announcement for a newer release, but it's not posted to the newsgroup. But there's also this: http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys ... d56a61b071 If you follow those clues you might find the newer release. Or maybe you can extract it from the Electropaint code.

I did try Google, but I guess I was being too specific. Whole bunch of hits on the paper in which Tristram describes it, the company that wanted $750, the announcement with the shar attachments scrubbed, and a bit of ElectroPaint code that had the panel library as an #include.

What did you use for your search, Jan?

I don' t need anything too new, I'm mostly interested in pulling together some interesting period software for the 4D.

SAQ wrote: ... it was released as public domain in the 4D1-3.2 days by NASA Ames and has since disappeared except for the company that wants $750 and a lot of bother to get a copy of the source code.

Those people should be disemboweled. All NASA code is public domain by law, but of course no one actually pays attention to that little detail. The entire "technology transfer" program is an illegal ripoff of the American taxpayers.

The Panel Library is in the GRASS source up to v5.4.1. The source can be downloaded here: http://grass.fbk.eu/grass54/source/, and the Panel Library is located at 'src.contrib/CERL/SGI/panel/' in the source tree

SAQ wrote: ... it was released as public domain in the 4D1-3.2 days by NASA Ames and has since disappeared except for the company that wants $750 and a lot of bother to get a copy of the source code.

Those people should be disemboweled. All NASA code is public domain by law, but of course no one actually pays attention to that little detail. The entire "technology transfer" program is an illegal ripoff of the American taxpayers.

How dare you oppose some good, honest corruption. Those are hard-working people going out of their way and spending their precious time trying to find ways to divert old, underutilized, taxpayer funded resources into useful, private property that provides them with a nice stream of income that they can then evade paying taxes on. It's honest American fraud with a strong history dating back through the Robber Barons and the Railroad Magnates and earlier, and to oppose it is un-American and practically Progressive.

I would normally agree with SAQ and paste a cynical smirk on my face. But tolerance for smaller scams has, over decades, led to larger and larger scams. And now corporations are legally people, who's spending to buy politicians is legally ruled to be "free speech" and can be funnelled into untraceable SuperPACs.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still just as cynical (clearly). I just don't think the "joke" they're putting over on us is very funny any more.

smj wrote:And now corporations are legally people, who's spending to buy politicians is legally ruled to be "free speech" and can be funnelled into untraceable SuperPACs.

I feel your pain. But don't forget that the case in question was around a company that put out a documentary movie slamming H. Clinton. It was supposed to air on TV, but under McCain-Feingold (passed under Bush) it got yanked and the corporation got hauled into court because the US government said, "You can't show a movie or publish a book that is critical of a politician during election season!"

The court kind of got squeezed on that one, because the government was arguing for such an aggressive reading of the law that basically nothing but an authorized news outlet or a solitary individual could publish or distribute anything--text, audio, or video--that talked about any politician within a certain window of approaching elections. For that purpose, and from a loooooooong history of law*, they placed corporations (in this case, a non-profit corporation) in the category of 'person' entitled to the right of speech. That is, they rejected the USG's argument that any number of single persons on their own had a right to say something, but if they came together and pooled their resources into an organization they lost the right to say that same thing.

So, yeah, I understand being a bit miffed out the outcome, but you have to look at what they were trying to avoid as well. The USG's argument was specifically intended to prevent citizens from being able to pool their resources for political speech. You could speak, but only if you did it alone. That works OK if "speech" means writing something on your blog, but how in the world could you make a movie and get it distributed all by yourself? 'AH, yes, Viacom, just make the check payable to, "John Smith," it's all on my personal account...'

They stepped so far over and away from sanity, they pretty much forced the court's hand, IMO, and are more to blame for any negative consequences than the court.

telackey wrote:The court kind of got squeezed on that one, because the government was arguing for such an aggressive reading of the law that basically nothing but an authorized news outlet or a solitary individual could publish or distribute anything--text, audio, or video--that talked about any politician within a certain window of approaching elections. For that purpose, and from a loooooooong history of law*, they placed corporations (in this case, a non-profit corporation) in the category of 'person' entitled to the right of speech. That is, they rejected the USG's argument that any number of single persons on their own had a right to say something, but if they came together and pooled their resources into an organization they lost the right to say that same thing.

Probably ought to move to a different thread here

The thing I always wonder about is why the US is so averse to facing the real situation. Brown vs Board of Education was stupid. Deal with the FACT that discrimination on the basis of race is against the principles of the United States. Instead they sidestep the real issue and pick some horsecrap side-issue upon which to make major judgements.

The real trouble with the swift-boating and the Hillary movies was that they were all lies. So face the real problem and make lying on political issues a felony. Ten years and ALL your money, forever. Or make it a capital offense just like treason because basically it is treason. Democracy depends on an informed electorate to make good decisions. Voting based on lies is tantamount to no democracy at all.

Instead, they pursue horsecrap issues that come around later to bite everyone in the ass, hard. Idiots.